ISLAMABAD:
The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) has held that the Punjab Police cannot mechanically refuse the recruitment of a candidate solely on the basis of a pending or already registered FIR, observing that the authorities must evaluate each case on its own merits and in accordance with constitutional principles.
In a six-page judgment written by Chief Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan, the court upheld an order of the Lahore High Court (LHC) and held that the Constitution does not authorize executive authorities to apply recruitment policies in a manner that does not take into account the individual facts and circumstances of each case.
The Court observed that administrative discretion must always be exercised after careful consideration and be supported by reasons demonstrating a rational connection between the available material and the conclusion reached.
“An order refusing appointment which merely reproduces the existence of an earlier FIR, without assessing the legal effect of the subsequent acquittal or the surrounding circumstances, reflects no actual exercise of discretion but only a mechanical application of a policy.
“Such an approach cannot be sustained as part of a constitutional decision,” the judgment said.
The Court observed that while recruitment into the civil service, particularly into a disciplined force such as the police, allows the State to prescribe standards of integrity, morality and fitness, the discretion of the appointing authority remains subject to constitutional limitations.
“The appointing authority is therefore competent to examine the background of a candidate before making an appointment. However, this review must be exercised within constitutional limits.
“Executive discretion cannot be transformed into an arbitrary or mechanical exercise by treating the mere fact of registration of a criminal case as an automatic and irreversible disqualification, regardless of the applicant’s subsequent exoneration.”
The judgment emphasizes that any administrative decision affecting public employment must remain consistent with constitutional guarantees of fairness, legality and equality.
The court further held that the Punjab Police policy letter relied upon by the authorities must be interpreted in a manner consistent with constitutional principles.
“An executive order can regulate the hiring process and prescribe background screening standards, but it cannot override the legal consequences arising from a judicial decision.”
The judgment adds that once a competent court has acquitted a candidate, the appointing authority cannot ignore that judicial finding by continuing to treat the candidate as if the allegations in the FIR had been established.
“Such an approach would amount to substituting executive suspicion for judicial determination, an approach which is not permitted within the constitutional framework,” the court observed. The court, however, clarified that an acquittal does not automatically give right to appointment in the police service.
“Appointment to the police service is not a matter of automatic right but remains subject to the condition that the appointing authority is satisfied that the candidate possesses the aptitude, character and integrity required of a member of a disciplined force.”
